The power to ban firearms...?

[M14 Shooter]

The power comes from the constitutional power of the legislative and executive branches to collectively pass federal law.

The limitation on that power comes from the Supreme Court's constitutional power to overturn laws it deems unconstitutional.

I thought the three branches were to be equal in power.

You'll have to excuse NYC - he has an uncanny ability to type a whole lot of words and yet say nothing meningful.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Until the ratification of the 18th amendment, the federal government did not have the power to ban alcohol.

Given that, from where, specifically, does it derive the power to ban guns?

"Well-regulated Militia".

Done.

Yet punctuation within the sentence does not end there... maybe you should go back and take basic English again
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Joe has no interest in an honest discussion - he exists only to provide support for the premise that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or disnoesty.

 

[Little-Acorn]

The power comes from the constitutional power of the legislative and executive branches to collectively pass federal law.

The limitation on that power comes from the Supreme Court's constitutional power to overturn laws it deems unconstitutional.

That's one of the limitations.

Another limitation, is language in the Constitution itself, explicitly forbidding government from doing something.

Such as the 2nd amendment, which flatly forbids and govt in the U.S. from infringing people's right to own and carry guns and other such weapons.

So in answer to the question in the OP:

from where, specifically, does it [the government] derive the power to ban guns?

The answer is, "The government DOES NOT have that power, since it is flatly forbidden by the 2nd amendment".

 

[FA_Q2]

The power comes from the constitutional power of the legislative and executive branches to collectively pass federal law.

The limitation on that power comes from the Supreme Court's constitutional power to overturn laws it deems unconstitutional.

I thought the three branches were to be equal in power.

I've read that the original design was for all three branches to interpret the Constitution as needed. However nowadays, it seems only the Judicial Branch does this. I really think we are long overdue for some sort of modern overhaul/rethinking of our Governmental structure (while still keeping our core laws and principles in place, of course).

I would say that is incorrect though. The three branches actively interpret the constitution all the time. Technically, every time Congress passes a law it is interpreting the constitution as giving congress the ability and authority to pass that law. every time the exec vetoes or signs it, he is doing the same thing.

There MUST be a branch that can overrule them otherwise checks and balances is completely meaningless. The court is acting as it should as far as what powers it has even if it is acting incorrectly in some of its decisions.

In a system where the court does not have the ability to determine if a law is constitutional, you might as well not have one. There would be exactly zero enforcement capability to require the government to adhere to it. While not perfect, it is as close as we can get atm.

The real beauty here is that is the congress disagrees with the courts rulings, they actually have the power to overturn them. The fact that is nigh impossible in the current political climate is not a problem inherent in the system of government - it is inherent in our duopolistic political system.